[sc34wg3] occurrence - basename fuzzy boarder

[Geir Ove Grønmo]

* Martin Bryan
| Re (on the IRC chat line): the reason is that i've never really understood
| the reason why basenames and occurrence have to be different.
| 
| The main reason for the difference was the merging and TNC: Base names could
| be merged, occurrences couldn't. 

That's ok, but I still don't understand why they need to have
different structures.

| Once you had split out base names it made sense to put the other
| naming things, related to variant (view specific) display and
| sorting, within the same area (topicname) rather than within the
| other occurrences.

Why do you consider variants as being restricted to topic names? In my
opinion is has to do with rendition of information resources in
general - not just names. Occurrences are renderable in the same way
names are, and I believe the Topic Maps standard should allow this.

IMO occurrences and basenames should have the same structure. This
includes occurrences having variants, basenames having type and
basenames having locators. Whether they should be separate item types in
SAM or not I'm not entirely sure about. Keeping them as two item types
is probably ok.

Geir O.